The photos of relics come from OCA, ROCOR, and OCRO sources. They seem to think that they are actual relics. How these relics were obtained in the first place is another story.

It is the ROC that refuses to recognize the bones as relics despite overwhelming DNA evidence.

So those who accept them as the Passion-Bearers bones venerate them as relics, and the ROC which refuses to recognize the bones as those of the Passion-Bearers do not. Neither back your assertions and complaints. Nor straighten out your confusion.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2014, 03:39:05 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, Rambam has a serious idea there. Perhaps a heartfelt petition to Rome expressing in serious terms why this would be problematic to the Orthodox faithful is needed - my family has some history in regards to that (it didn't work out well but that was in the 1930's) but in 2012 my brother, an Orthodox scholar and priest had an audience with the deputy of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches that was heartfelt and honest in the very offices where the petitions sent to Rome in the 1930's were ignored. Perhaps addressing our concerns to him - the Archbishop - would be a good idea. (No Vlad Tepes or Dracula references though...)

With all due respect, a "heartfelt petition" will not overturn a canonization. Remember that a miracle has taken place. Although the details have yet to be announced, someone prayed for Cardinal Stepinac's intercession and was inexplicably healed. It has been approved as a miracle. It is even reported that His Holiness Francis was pleased by the report.

That precisely is the problem with the canonization process of Rome. They are so legalistic, they leave themselves no wiggle room. You know, gc, that I've posited the question why the self ruled, autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches united with Rome need Rome's permission to glorify their true passion bearers and martyrs like St. Pavel of Presov and St. Teodor of Muchachevo even though they are acknowledged as Saints by the local Greek Catholics while awaiting Rome's legalism to proceed. The answers are, shall we say, ambiguous.

If Rome canonizes Stepanic before Goidich and Rhomza, THAT is an affront to truly loyal Eastern Catholics who suffered greatly during and after the war for their loyalty to the Vatican. Another signal to both the Eastern Catholics AND the Orthodox as to just where the Curia holds Eastern Christianity. Popes come and go, we here may see good in them and trust them even like Pope Benedict, but the Curia remains and breaks Pope's. Ask Pope Benedict next time you're in Rome.

Another signal to both the Eastern Catholics AND the Orthodox as to just where the Curia holds Eastern Christianity.

This comment reminded me of the recent Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby's book "A Voice from the Byzantine East," where he spends some time saying that the Eastern Catholics are in an unfortunate situation where they are ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia. So they are fundamentally subordinate to the Latin Church's hierarchs/government itself and not just the Bishop of Rome. Also with Latin European hierarchs trying to dictate Melkite or GC policy in their own church's lands (e.g. Melkites in the Middle East).

This ties in with your comments about EC's needing Latin approval for their own saints, etc. It's a shame when the Patriarch and Synod of one's own supposedly independent church are under the Curia and various committees of the Latin Church, as though they're in practice just second-class subjects of the Latin Church itself. Then when Latin Catholics tout the Eastern Catholic model for unity with the Orthodox, it just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Another signal to both the Eastern Catholics AND the Orthodox as to just where the Curia holds Eastern Christianity.

This comment reminded me of the recent Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby's book "A Voice from the Byzantine East," where he spends some time saying that the Eastern Catholics are in an unfortunate situation where they are ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia. So they are fundamentally subordinate to the Latin Church's hierarchs/government itself and not just the Bishop of Rome. Also with Latin European hierarchs trying to dictate Melkite or GC policy in their own church's lands (e.g. Melkites in the Middle East).

This ties in with your comments about EC's needing Latin approval for their own saints, etc. It's a shame when the Patriarch and Synod of one's own supposedly independent church are under the Curia and various committees of the Latin Church, as though they're in practice just second-class subjects of the Latin Church itself. Then when Latin Catholics tout the Eastern Catholic model for unity with the Orthodox, it just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

And it is for the points listed out in this post above that I have always believed that Eastern Catholics do not actually exist.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Another signal to both the Eastern Catholics AND the Orthodox as to just where the Curia holds Eastern Christianity.

This comment reminded me of the recent Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby's book "A Voice from the Byzantine East," where he spends some time saying that the Eastern Catholics are in an unfortunate situation where they are ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia. So they are fundamentally subordinate to the Latin Church's hierarchs/government itself and not just the Bishop of Rome. Also with Latin European hierarchs trying to dictate Melkite or GC policy in their own church's lands (e.g. Melkites in the Middle East).

This ties in with your comments about EC's needing Latin approval for their own saints, etc. It's a shame when the Patriarch and Synod of one's own supposedly independent church are under the Curia and various committees of the Latin Church, as though they're in practice just second-class subjects of the Latin Church itself. Then when Latin Catholics tout the Eastern Catholic model for unity with the Orthodox, it just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

And it is for the points listed out in this post above that I have always believed that Eastern Catholics do not actually exist.

In Christ,Andrew

And it points out why many Eastern Catholics sarcastically refer to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And they refer not to the subcontinent, but to the office within the American government's Department of the Interior.

While I have empathy for, even fraternal love for my eastern Catholic relatives and many friends, there is simply no way to be true to the Eastern Fathers and the great Tradition of the Christian Orthodox East and be subject to the claimed universal jurisdiction as defined and exercised by the bishop of Rome. It is akin to forcing a square peg into a circular hole.

For all of the extreme loyalty to the Holy Father exhibited by pious Eastern Catholics it seems that all they receive in the end is a sign to pin on their ends which reads 'kick me' in many languages.

The photos of relics come from OCA, ROCOR, and OCRO sources. They seem to think that they are actual relics. How these relics were obtained in the first place is another story.

It is the ROC that refuses to recognize the bones as relics despite overwhelming DNA evidence.

So those who accept them as the Passion-Bearers bones venerate them as relics, and the ROC which refuses to recognize the bones as those of the Passion-Bearers do not. Neither back your assertions and complaints. Nor straighten out your confusion.

This is in stark contrast to the position of the Moscow patriarchate. Aren't ROC and ROCOR one?

Instead of criticizing the Catholic Church for Her canonization process, your energy would be better spent trying to help the Moscow Patriarchate recover from its obvious blunder of not recognizing the bones as those of the Imperial Family.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those of the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

The fact that a ROCOR parish has received fragments from the very bones that underwent DNA testing and which the ROC denies as being those of the Imperial family certainly can cause confusion for the faithful.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in parishes not under the jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate.

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

Not abuse. An inconsistency.

A dissenter or two trumps the official proclamations, in word and deed, that the Romanovs are saints, and that their relics are genuine? Gimme a break.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Yes, I do know a thing or two about Russians. I would appreciate the names of ROC parishes that contain relics of the Imperial Family. I would like to visit them, if possible.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Yes, I do know a thing or two about Russians. I would appreciate the names of ROC parishes that contain relics of the Imperial Family. I would like to visit them, if possible.

Do you have a valid passport and visa?

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Yes, I do know a thing or two about Russians. I would appreciate the names of ROC parishes that contain relics of the Imperial Family. I would like to visit them, if possible.

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Yes, I do know a thing or two about Russians. I would appreciate the names of ROC parishes that contain relics of the Imperial Family. I would like to visit them, if possible.

Do you have a valid passport and visa?

Ready to go.

Heh. Why would you want to venerate relics which you regard as not saintly? And of saints who are not even part of your church? Aren't they both sins in your church?

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

Not abuse. An inconsistency.

A dissenter or two trumps the official proclamations, in word and deed, that the Romanovs are saints, and that their relics are genuine? Gimme a break.

LBK,

The Moscow Patriarchate denies-or should I say, is hesitant to declare- that the bones which underwent DNA testing and are interred in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral are those of the Romanovs. Yet, a ROCOR parish receives fragments of those very same bones and states that they are of the Romanovs. Are you saying that is completely appropriate? Isn't that disrespectful to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate?

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

GC

The relics of the family were interred with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul at St Petersburg. Fragments of their relics have been made available to various people and churches for veneration and incorporation into icons.

So, then why does the Moscow Patriarchate currently deny that the bones interred in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul are those of the Imperial Family?

I take it these icons which contain the bone fragments are found in non-ROC parishes.

If you know anything about Russians, you'll know that dissenters and conspiracy theorists abound, and have existed since at least medieval times. These icons are indeed in ROC parishes, as well as elsewhere.

Yes, I do know a thing or two about Russians. I would appreciate the names of ROC parishes that contain relics of the Imperial Family. I would like to visit them, if possible.

Do you have a valid passport and visa?

Ready to go.

Heh. Why would you want to venerate relics which you regard as not saintly? And of saints who are not even part of your church? Aren't they both sins in your church?

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

Not abuse. An inconsistency.

A dissenter or two trumps the official proclamations, in word and deed, that the Romanovs are saints, and that their relics are genuine? Gimme a break.

LBK,

The Moscow Patriarchate denies-or should I say, is hesitant to declare- that the bones which underwent DNA testing and are interred in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral are those of the Romanovs. Yet, a ROCOR parish receives fragments of those very same bones and states that they are of the Romanovs. Are you saying that is completely appropriate? Isn't that disrespectful to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate?

The MP has indeed declared the bones as authentic, as evidenced by the internment of the bones at the Petersburg Cathedral, and its canonization of the Romanovs as saints. Your refusal to accept this is not my problem, but yours.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

Not abuse. An inconsistency.

A dissenter or two trumps the official proclamations, in word and deed, that the Romanovs are saints, and that their relics are genuine? Gimme a break.

LBK,

The Moscow Patriarchate denies-or should I say, is hesitant to declare- that the bones which underwent DNA testing and are interred in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral are those of the Romanovs. Yet, a ROCOR parish receives fragments of those very same bones and states that they are of the Romanovs. Are you saying that is completely appropriate? Isn't that disrespectful to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate?

The MP has indeed declared the bones as authentic, as evidenced by the internment of the bones at the Petersburg Cathedral, and its canonization of the Romanovs as saints. Your refusal to accept this is not my problem, but yours.

Actually, it is your problem. You need to check your sources.

Why did Patriarch Alexei II not officiate the service? Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but only as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"? See The Many Deaths of Nicholas II by Wendy Slater

Neither the President, Boris Yeltsin, or His Holiness Patriarch Alexey II, who is the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia, will attend this Royal Imperial Funeral. This means that the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate will not attend either, as they have serious doubts that the bones being buried on July 17th are truly the bones or the Tsar and family....

In the meantime I report to you humbly, with a wounded heart, that Father Boris Glebov, at the request of Patriarch Alexey II, will not actually name the Romanovs during the ceremony! Shall we next hear, perhaps, that the plaques bearing the names of those being interred, near the burial area, will be turned around, leaving the impression that all that is being buried are anonymous bones?..

and

Quote

When he was preparing to preside at the burial of the remains of Tsar Nicholas Romanov II and his family in St. Petersburg in 1998, Father Boris Glebov is reported to have said: "I really don't know who I am burying." During the service a few days later, the priest was forbidden to utter the names of the victims, because the Russian Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the authenticity of the bones.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?It was the Russian government commission that recognized the bones as that of the Romanovs. I don't think the Church had any hand in the planning of the funeral, except for the officiating.Didn't the government install the plaques?

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

That was the government's work, not the Church's.

It wasn't the government which held the Orthodox funeral and buried them by name with full honors.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 12:22:03 AM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

I take it to mean you are unable to answer that question.It is my understanding that the cathedral is still officially a museum with church services permitted to take place. Therefore, it's more likely the plaques were installed by the government.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

I take it to mean you are unable to answer that question.

Not at all. You're the one tying yourself in knots over this matter, not me. The Russian Church, including the MP, has glorified the Romanovs as saints, and has interred their relics by name. Deal with it.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

I take it to mean you are unable to answer that question.

Not at all. You're the one tying yourself in knots over this matter, not me. The Russian Church, including the MP, has glorified the Romanovs as saints, and has interred their relics by name. Deal with it.

There is nothing for me to "deal with". If you want to overlook what is plain obvious, that is your decision.

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

I take it to mean you are unable to answer that question.

Not at all. You're the one tying yourself in knots over this matter, not me. The Russian Church, including the MP, has glorified the Romanovs as saints, and has interred their relics by name. Deal with it.

There is nothing for me to "deal with". If you want to overlook what is plain obvious, that is your decision.

Thread about long dead RC Hierarch full of invective bickering- 168 replies in 1 week

Thread seeking prayers for the persecuted Christians of Syria- 20 replies in a little over 1 month

This Great Lent, how about we all make it a goal to prioritize our spiritualities?

Or we could make it a priority to not assume what people are praying about based on what they post....and telling others what to do..

Nah, I enjoy it too much.

Besides, I wasn't "telling people what to do," I was making a friendly suggestion. But hey, if you guys want to play bulletin board warriors and hash out a completely pointless topic as if your posts actually make a difference in real life, go ahead. I sure won't stop you.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 01:32:31 AM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Why did the Holy Synod instruct Archpriest Boris Glebov, who officiated the funeral service, to not mention their names, but as "victims of the Civil War known only to God"?

Hardly. The chapel in which they are buried features large memorial signs commemorating by name of each of the family members interred at that service, and each of the coffins bears the name of him or her who lies within it.

So, why the instruction to not mention their names?

Not my problem.

I take it to mean you are unable to answer that question.

Not at all. You're the one tying yourself in knots over this matter, not me. The Russian Church, including the MP, has glorified the Romanovs as saints, and has interred their relics by name. Deal with it.

There is nothing for me to "deal with". If you want to overlook what is plain obvious, that is your decision.

Russian Orthodox Church still doubts authenticity of Russian royal family remains

Moscow, August 9, Interfax - The head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin has said that the Russian Orthodox Church still has doubts regarding secular experts' conclusions that the human remains found near the city of Yekaterinburg belonged to the Russian Imperial Family members.

"In my opinion, a very wide range of competent experts, not necessarily just Orthodox experts, should be allowed to study the discovered remains," Father Vsevolod said.

It is important both to compare the DNA of some individual fragment with the DNA of the remains of other Imperial Family members, assess the wholeness of the skeletons, establish whether or not all of the found human remains have the same DNA and confirm the presence of former injuries, for example the injury that was sustained by Tsar Nicholas II during his trip to Japan when he was the heir to the Russian throne, the archpriest said.

There is also a need to compare different theories describing how the bodies were disposed of and buried, he said.

Eleven people, including members of the Russian Imperial Family and people from their entourage, were shot at the Urals regional council presidium's order in the early hours of July 17, 1918.

A grave with nine bodies was found on Staraya Koptyakovskaya Road near Yekaterinburg in July 1991. The remains were identified as those of Emperor Nicholas II, his 46-year-old wife Alexandra Fyodorovna, their daughters Olga, 22, Tatyana, 21, and Anastasia, 17, and their servants Yevgeny Botkin, 53, Anna Demidova, 40, Aloizy Trupp, 62, and Ivan Kharitonov, 48.

The remains of two more people were discovered during archaeological excavation works 70 kilometers south of the first grave on July 26, 2007. The remains have still not been buried, but numerous expert analyses indicate that the remains were most likely those of Crown Prince Alexey and his sister Maria.

The Investigative Committee said in January 2011 that it had completed an investigation into the death of Nicholas II, his family members and entourage and closed the criminal case.

The Russian Orthodox Church has still not recognized the remains interred in Peter and Paul Cathedral as those of Nicholas II and his family members and entourage, claiming that it was not convinced by the proof of their authenticity that was presented.

The House of Romanov head, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, will recognize the remains buried at the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg as those of the royal family, if the Russian Orthodox Church says they are authentic, the House of Romanov spokesman Alexander Zakatov told Interfax.

Russian Orthodox Church still doubts authenticity of Russian royal family remains

Moscow, August 9, Interfax - The head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin has said that the Russian Orthodox Church still has doubts regarding secular experts' conclusions that the human remains found near the city of Yekaterinburg belonged to the Russian Imperial Family members.

"In my opinion, a very wide range of competent experts, not necessarily just Orthodox experts, should be allowed to study the discovered remains," Father Vsevolod said.

It is important both to compare the DNA of some individual fragment with the DNA of the remains of other Imperial Family members, assess the wholeness of the skeletons, establish whether or not all of the found human remains have the same DNA and confirm the presence of former injuries, for example the injury that was sustained by Tsar Nicholas II during his trip to Japan when he was the heir to the Russian throne, the archpriest said.

There is also a need to compare different theories describing how the bodies were disposed of and buried, he said.

Eleven people, including members of the Russian Imperial Family and people from their entourage, were shot at the Urals regional council presidium's order in the early hours of July 17, 1918.

A grave with nine bodies was found on Staraya Koptyakovskaya Road near Yekaterinburg in July 1991. The remains were identified as those of Emperor Nicholas II, his 46-year-old wife Alexandra Fyodorovna, their daughters Olga, 22, Tatyana, 21, and Anastasia, 17, and their servants Yevgeny Botkin, 53, Anna Demidova, 40, Aloizy Trupp, 62, and Ivan Kharitonov, 48.

The remains of two more people were discovered during archaeological excavation works 70 kilometers south of the first grave on July 26, 2007. The remains have still not been buried, but numerous expert analyses indicate that the remains were most likely those of Crown Prince Alexey and his sister Maria.

The Investigative Committee said in January 2011 that it had completed an investigation into the death of Nicholas II, his family members and entourage and closed the criminal case.

The Russian Orthodox Church has still not recognized the remains interred in Peter and Paul Cathedral as those of Nicholas II and his family members and entourage, claiming that it was not convinced by the proof of their authenticity that was presented.

The House of Romanov head, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, will recognize the remains buried at the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg as those of the royal family, if the Russian Orthodox Church says they are authentic, the House of Romanov spokesman Alexander Zakatov told Interfax.

The Russian Church, including the MP, has glorified the Romanovs as saints, and interred their relics by name. End of story. Why someone who is not Orthodox, and with a clear agenda to smear the Orthodox Church, continues to flog this dead horse is beyond me.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

The MP has indeed declared the bones as authentic, as evidenced by the internment of the bones at the Petersburg Cathedral, and its canonization of the Romanovs as saints.

I thought that Dr. Tatsuo Nagai, the director of the Japanese Institute of Forensic Medicine and Science, said that the bones buried in St. Petersburg in 1998 were not the remains of the family of Nicholas II? Nagai T, Araki N, Yuko Yanagisawa, Popov VL: DNA identification of Georgij Romanov, a direct brother of the Russian Tsar Nicolas II: sequence of mitochondrial DNA. Igaku To Seibutsugaku 1999, 139:247-251.Also see: http://en.ria.ru/onlinenews/20041209/39775245.html

griego catolico, it is you who is confused. The MP indeed has glorified the Imperial Family as saints, in August, 2000 (ROCOR had done so in 1981).

LBK,

Please read carefully.

I am speaking about the recognition of the bones as those of the Imperial Family, not about the canonization.

The fact that a ROCOR parish has received fragments from the very bones that underwent DNA testing and which the ROC denies as being those of the Imperial family certainly can cause confusion for the faithful.

GC

The glorification matters, the recognition of the bones do not.

Can you provide any evidence that the Orthodox Faithful of the Catholic Church are anywhere as confused as you are on this?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A believer subject to Papal authority probably should think a little bit before accusing the Orthodox of abuse in the exchange and veneration of relics. Frankly we all need to be careful with respect to relics as far too many view them as quasi magical talismans in both the Churches of west and east.

Not abuse. An inconsistency.

A dissenter or two trumps the official proclamations, in word and deed, that the Romanovs are saints, and that their relics are genuine? Gimme a break.

LBK,

The Moscow Patriarchate denies-or should I say, is hesitant to declare- that the bones which underwent DNA testing and are interred in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral are those of the Romanovs. Yet, a ROCOR parish receives fragments of those very same bones and states that they are of the Romanovs. Are you saying that is completely appropriate? Isn't that disrespectful to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate?

Nyet.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth